Quiz
Offer Quiz
This quiz has question types that open in the usual player.
Questions in this quiz (34)
1[blank_start]Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking[blank_end]
C drove into a multi-storey [blank_start]carpark[blank_end]. He put money into the [blank_start]ticket machine[blank_end], retrieved his ticket and drove into the carpark. The back of the [blank_start]ticket[blank_end] stated the terms and conditions of parking in the carpark. The [blank_start]terms and conditions[blank_end] excluded the [blank_start]liability[blank_end] of the parking company for any [blank_start]personal injury[blank_end] incurred. The issue was whether or not the terms and conditions had been incorporated into the contract. Held: the [blank_start]terms and conditions[blank_end] had not been incorporated into the contract. The machine itself [blank_start]constituted[blank_end] an offer, the input of money constituted [blank_start]acceptance[blank_end] and the ticket was dispensed after the [blank_start]acceptance[blank_end] had taken place, and therefore the [blank_start]terms[blank_end] could not be [blank_start]incorporated[blank_end] into the contract.- Acarpark
- Bacceptance
- Cincorporated
- Dticket machine
- Eticket
- Fterms and conditions
- GThornton v Shoe Lane Parking
- Hconstituted
- Iliability
- Jpersonal injury
- Kterms and conditions
- Lacceptance
- Mterms
2[blank_start]Clarke v Dunraven[blank_end]
C and D entered a yacht race pursuant to [blank_start]Yacht Racing Association Rules[blank_end], which provided that if one party was to [blank_start]negligently damage[blank_end] the yacht of another, he must pay [blank_start]damages[blank_end]. D [blank_start]damaged[blank_end] C’s yacht due to [blank_start]negligence[blank_end]. Held: D had to pay because the parties had [blank_start]agreed to contract[blank_end] with one another on the [blank_start]terms[blank_end] of the contract.- AClarke v Dunraven
- BYacht Racing Association Rules
- Cnegligence
- Dagreed to contract
- Enegligently damage
- Fdamaged
- Gdamages
- Hterms
3[blank_start]Treitel[blank_end]: "An offer is an [blank_start]expression[blank_end] of [blank_start]willingness to contract[blank_end] on certain terms made with the intention that it shall become [blank_start]binding[blank_end] as soon as it is [blank_start]accepted by the person[blank_end] to whom it is addressed.”
- ATreitel
- Bwillingness to contract
- Caccepted by the person
- Dexpression
- Ebinding
4There cannot be an [blank_start]agreement[blank_end] unless one party makes an [blank_start]offer to contract[blank_end] on certain terms with another. The [blank_start]offeree[blank_end] must accept the offer and [blank_start]communicate[blank_end] his acceptance to the offeror.
- Aagreement
- Bofferee
- Coffer to contract
- Dcommunicate
5[blank_start]Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company[blank_end]
A [blank_start]newspaper[blank_end] advertisement advertised the use of a [blank_start]carbolic smoke ball[blank_end] to prevent the contraction of influenza. It stated that a [blank_start]£100 reward[blank_end] will be given to anyone who contracts [blank_start]influenza[blank_end] after using the ball accordingly for [blank_start]2 weeks[blank_end]. C purchased one of the balls and used it correctly, but contracted influenza after the 2 weeks. She sought to claim her reward. D tried to argue that the [blank_start]advertisement[blank_end] was not an offer, but an [blank_start]invitation to treat[blank_end]. They raised the following arguments:
1. It was a “[blank_start]mere sales puff[blank_end].”
2. You cannot make an offer to the [blank_start]world[blank_end] at large.
3. There was [blank_start]no notification[blank_end] of acceptance.
4. The wording was too vague to [blank_start]constitute an offer[blank_end] since there was no stated time limit as to catching the flu.
5. [blank_start]No consideration[blank_end] provided since the ‘offer’ did not specify that the users must have purchased them.
Held: C was entitled to the reward because the [blank_start]advertisement[blank_end] constituted a [blank_start]unilateral offer[blank_end] which C had accepted by performing the conditions set out in the advertisement.- ACarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
- Binfluenza
- Ccarbolic smoke ball
- Dnewspaper
- E2 weeks
- Finvitation to treat
- Gmere sales puff
- Hworld
- Ino notification
- Jconstitute an offer
- Kadvertisement
- Lunilateral offer
- Madvertisement
- NNo consideration
- O£100 reward
6[blank_start]Upton RDC v Powell[blank_end]
A [blank_start]fire broke[blank_end] out on C’s farm. He called the fire brigade, without realising that his [blank_start]farm[blank_end] was not within the fire service zone. He was charged a [blank_start]service fee[blank_end], and sought to be refunded. Held: by calling the [blank_start]fire brigade[blank_end], he had made an implied offer to pay the [blank_start]fire service[blank_end], which had already been [blank_start]accepted[blank_end] when the fire brigade [blank_start]performed[blank_end] their task of putting out the fire.- Aaccepted
- Bfarm
- Cfire brigade
- Dperformed
- Eservice fee
- Ffire broke
- Gfire service
- HUpton RDC v Powell
7[blank_start]Partridge v Crittenden[blank_end]
D placed an advertisement in a bird magazine for the sale of [blank_start]bramble finches[blank_end]. He was convicted under [blank_start]s6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954[blank_end], for this section of the Act made it an offence to sell such [blank_start]birds[blank_end]. Held: the advertisement was merely an [blank_start]invitation to treat[blank_end], not an offer to sell the birds. His [blank_start]conviction[blank_end] was [blank_start]quashed[blank_end].- APartridge v Crittenden
- Bconviction
- Cquashed
- Dbirds
- Es6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954
- Fbramble finches
- Ginvitation to treat
8[blank_start]Denton v GNR[blank_end]
C consulted D’s train [blank_start]timetable[blank_end] to catch the train. C arrived at the [blank_start]train station[blank_end], but was told that the [blank_start]train[blank_end] had been [blank_start]cancelled[blank_end]. As a result, C missed a meeting and incurred a [blank_start]£5 loss[blank_end]. Held: there was a [blank_start]contract[blank_end].- ADenton v GNR
- Btrain station
- Ctimetable
- D£5 loss
- Econtract
- Ftrain
- Gcancelled
9[blank_start]Fisher v Bell[blank_end]
C displayed [blank_start]flick knives[blank_end] in the window of his shop for sale. The relevant [blank_start]statute[blank_end] made it an offence to sell such flick knives. Held: the [blank_start]display of the knives[blank_end] in the window was merely an [blank_start]invitation to treat[blank_end], therefore his [blank_start]conviction was quashed.[blank_end]- Aflick knives
- Bstatute
- Cdisplay of the knives
- Dinvitation to treat
- EFisher v Bell
- Fconviction was quashed.
10[blank_start]Pharmaceutical Society of Great[blank_end] British v Boots
Boots employed a new [blank_start]self-service system[blank_end], where customers could pick up pharmaceutical [blank_start]items[blank_end] and place them into their basket to pay for at the checkout till. The [blank_start]PSGB[blank_end] brought an action to [blank_start]determine[blank_end] the legality of the system, with regard to the sale of such items which were required by law to be sold in the presence of a [blank_start]pharmacist[blank_end]. Held: the display of the [blank_start]goods[blank_end] constituted an [blank_start]invitation to treat[blank_end], not an [blank_start]offer[blank_end]. The customer made an [blank_start]offer[blank_end] to buy the goods when they placed them into their [blank_start]basket[blank_end] and took them over to the checkout. The shop assistant then chooses whether to [blank_start]accept the offer[blank_end]. The contract is therefore concluded at the checkout in the presence of a [blank_start]pharmacist[blank_end].- Apharmacist
- BPharmaceutical Society of Great
- Cself-service system
- Ddetermine
- EPSGB
- Fbasket
- Ggoods
- Hinvitation to treat
- Ioffer
- Jpharmacist
- Kitems
- Loffer
- Maccept the offer
11Sale of Goods Act [blank_start]1979[blank_end], [blank_start]s57(2)[blank_end]
A sale by auction is [blank_start]complete[blank_end] when the auctioneer announces its completion by the [blank_start]fall of the hammer[blank_end], or in any other [blank_start]customary[blank_end] manner; and until the announcement is made, any [blank_start]bidder[blank_end] may retract his bid.- Acomplete
- Bs57(2)
- C1979
- Dfall of the hammer
- Ebidder
- Fcustomary
12[blank_start]Warlow v Harrison[blank_end]
A public auction of a horse ‘without reserve’ was [blank_start]advertised[blank_end] by D. C bid [blank_start]60[blank_end] guineas and the owner bid 61. There were no further bids, so D put his [blank_start]hammer[blank_end] down on the bid for 61 guineas. C claimed the horse should be his because he was the highest [blank_start]bona fide[blank_end] bidder. Held: He was only entitled to sue for [blank_start]loss of opportunity[blank_end] to buy the horse. There was [blank_start]no acceptance of the offer[blank_end] because the [blank_start]hammer[blank_end] had not been put down on C’s bid.- AWarlow v Harrison
- Badvertised
- C60
- Dhammer
- Eloss of opportunity
- Fbona fide
- Gno acceptance of the offer
- Hhammer
13[blank_start]Harris v Nickerson[blank_end]
D advertised an [blank_start]auction sale[blank_end] in the newspaper of specified [blank_start]goods[blank_end]. C attended the [blank_start]auction[blank_end] and was ready to purchase in pursuance of such a [blank_start]request[blank_end]. D, suddenly and without notice, withdrew the [blank_start]specified goods[blank_end] for the auction. Held: The advertisement was not an [blank_start]offer[blank_end], but was a mere declaration of [blank_start]intent[blank_end].- AHarris v Nickerson
- Bauction
- Cintent
- Drequest
- Egoods
- Fspecified goods
- Gauction sale
- Hoffer
14[blank_start]Barry v Heathcote Ball Ltd[blank_end]
C had submitted the [blank_start]highest bids[blank_end] at an auction stated to be without [blank_start]reserve[blank_end] for two items worth [blank_start]£14,000[blank_end]. C had submitted bids of £200 each, but the auctioneer [blank_start]refused[blank_end] to sell them at that price. C brought an action for breach of contract, claiming [blank_start]damages[blank_end] of [blank_start]£27,600[blank_end].
Held: C was entitled to damages because where an [blank_start]auction[blank_end] takes place without reserve, the [blank_start]auctioneer[blank_end] makes a [blank_start]unilateral offer[blank_end] which is accepted by submitting the [blank_start]highest bid[blank_end].- ABarry v Heathcote Ball Ltd
- B£14,000
- Crefused
- D£27,600
- Eauctioneer
- Funilateral offer
- Ghighest bids
- Hdamages
- Iauction
- Jhighest bid
- Kreserve
15[blank_start]British Car Auctions v Wright[blank_end]
The [blank_start]appellants[blank_end] sold a car in an unroadworthy condition. Under the [blank_start]Road Traffic Act 1972[blank_end] it is an offence to sell such a [blank_start]vehicle[blank_end]. The appellants were [blank_start]charged[blank_end] with the offence and [blank_start]convicted[blank_end] in the Magistrate's Court. They appealed. Held: The offence is to sell, not to have an [blank_start]invitation to treat[blank_end]. There is no offer to sell, but always an o[blank_start]ffer to buy[blank_end].- Aappellants
- BRoad Traffic Act 1972
- Cconvicted
- Dcharged
- Einvitation to treat
- Fffer to buy
- Gvehicle
- HBritish Car Auctions v Wright
16[blank_start]Harvey v Facey[blank_end]
Harvey sent Facey a [blank_start]telegram[blank_end] about the sale of some [blank_start]property[blank_end]. He asked him to send his [blank_start]lowest cash price[blank_end] sum for the sale of [blank_start]Bumper Hall Pen[blank_end]. Facey replied with [blank_start]£900[blank_end]. Harvey then replied stating his [blank_start]acceptance[blank_end] of the sale of Bumper Hall Pen for that [blank_start]price[blank_end]. Held: There was [blank_start]no contract[blank_end]. A mere response to a question does not [blank_start]constitute[blank_end] an offer.- Aproperty
- Blowest cash price
- Cacceptance
- D£900
- Eno contract
- Fconstitute
- GBumper Hall Pen
- Htelegram
- Iprice
- JHarvey v Facey
17[blank_start]Stephenson, Jacques and Co v McLean[blank_end]
D offered to sell P iron for 40 shillings, [blank_start]open until Monday[blank_end]. On Monday morning, P sent a [blank_start]telegram[blank_end] asking D to state whether he would accept 40 for delivery [blank_start]over 2 months[blank_end], or if not, the [blank_start]longest limit[blank_end] he would give. D did not respond to the telegram, and sold to [blank_start]another party[blank_end]. On Monday afternoon, P sent a [blank_start]telegram[blank_end] stating he accepted the offer. Held: P was making a mere [blank_start]enquiry[blank_end], therefore the [blank_start]offer was still valid[blank_end] and could be accepted.- AStephenson, Jacques and Co v McLean
- Btelegram
- Copen until Monday
- Dlongest limit
- Eover 2 months
- Foffer was still valid
- Genquiry
- Htelegram
- Ianother party
18[blank_start]Conditions precedent[blank_end]
[blank_start]Suspensive conditions[blank_end], i.e. "I will sell you my umbrella if it rains tomorrow."
Treat the condition as being [blank_start]precedent[blank_end] to the existence of the contract, i.e. there is no [blank_start]contract[blank_end] unless and until the condition is [blank_start]satisfied[blank_end].- AConditions precedent
- BSuspensive conditions
- Cprecedent
- Dcontract
- Esatisfied
19[blank_start]Conditions subsequent[blank_end]
Resolutive conditions, i.e. "I will sell you my umbrella, [blank_start]but not[blank_end] if it rains tomorrow."
An immediately [blank_start]binding contract[blank_end], i.e. the contract is [blank_start]resolved[blank_end] if the condition is satisfied.- AConditions subsequent
- Bbinding contract
- Cresolved
- Dbut not
20Winn v [blank_start]Bull[blank_end]
D agreed with P to take a [blank_start]lease[blank_end] of a house. The agreement was 'subject to the [blank_start]preparation[blank_end] and approval of a [blank_start]formal contract[blank_end].' The words 'subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract' in a [blank_start]document[blank_end] prevented the document from being held to be a [blank_start]final agreement[blank_end] of which specific performance could be [blank_start]enforced[blank_end].- ABull
- Bpreparation
- Cformal contract
- Dfinal agreement
- Elease
- Fdocument
- Genforced
21Mackay v [blank_start]Dick and Stevenson[blank_end]
A term will be [blank_start]read[blank_end] into a contract as a [blank_start]matter of law[blank_end] to prevent one party [blank_start]frustrating[blank_end] the performance of an obligation by the other [blank_start]contracting party[blank_end], where it was dependent on an action being taken or not being taken by the [blank_start]first[blank_end] party.- Aread
- BDick and Stevenson
- Cfrustrating
- Dfirst
- Econtracting party
- Fmatter of law
22The [blank_start]Rolimpex[blank_end]
A contract between the parties contained the [blank_start]provision[blank_end] that D were required to get a [blank_start]license[blank_end] from the Polish government for the [blank_start]export of sugar[blank_end]. There was a [blank_start]disastrous failure[blank_end] of the sugarbeat [blank_start]crop[blank_end] and therefore a ban on sugar export. The license was [blank_start]retracted[blank_end] by the government. Held: D were protected by [blank_start]force majeure clauses[blank_end] - they were not in [blank_start]breach[blank_end] of contract.- ARolimpex
- Bprovision
- Cdisastrous failure
- Dforce majeure clauses
- Ebreach
- Fretracted
- Gexport of sugar
- Hcrop
- Ilicense
23An offer will [blank_start]cease[blank_end] to have effect if:
1. It is expressly revoked by the offeror, provided that the [blank_start]offeror[blank_end] communicates his [blank_start]revocation[blank_end] before there has been an [blank_start]effective acceptance[blank_end].
2. The offeree rejects the [blank_start]offer[blank_end] or makes a [blank_start]counter-offer[blank_end]
3. The offeror makes a [blank_start]second offer[blank_end] in [blank_start]substitution[blank_end] for the first offer.
An offer will [blank_start]lapse[blank_end] if it is not accepted within a time fixed by the [blank_start]offeror[blank_end] for its acceptance, or if no time has passed, after a [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] time for [blank_start]acceptance[blank_end] has passed.- Acease
- Bofferor
- Crevocation
- Deffective acceptance
- Eoffer
- Fcounter-offer
- Gsubstitution
- Hsecond offer
- Iofferor
- Jlapse
- Kacceptance
- Lreasonable
24If the offeror fixes a time within which [blank_start]acceptance[blank_end] must be [blank_start]communicated[blank_end], he cannot be prevented from [blank_start]revoking[blank_end] his [blank_start]offer[blank_end] within that time unless he has agreed to keep it [blank_start]open[blank_end].
- Aacceptance
- Brevoking
- Copen
- Doffer
- Ecommunicated
25The offeror may [blank_start]waive[blank_end] the need for [blank_start]communication of the acceptance[blank_end] within the time [blank_start]stipulated[blank_end] in the offer.
- Awaive
- Bstipulated
- Ccommunication of the acceptance
26It is [blank_start]uncertain[blank_end] as to whether or not the [blank_start]death[blank_end] of the offeror or offeree will cause the contract to [blank_start]lapse[blank_end].
- Auncertain
- Bdeath
- Clapse
27[blank_start]Byrne v Van Tienhoven[blank_end]
An offer can be [blank_start]revoked[blank_end] but must be communicated [blank_start]expressly[blank_end] before acceptance.- Aexpressly
- Brevoked
- CByrne v Van Tienhoven
28[blank_start]Dickinson v Dodds[blank_end]
There was a [blank_start]negotiation[blank_end] about the sale of a [blank_start]property[blank_end] between the parties. D sent a letter to P with a set [blank_start]time[blank_end] limit. P was told by a [blank_start]third party[blank_end] that D had sold the property to someone else. P [blank_start]accepted[blank_end] the offer. Held: There was [blank_start]no offer[blank_end].- ADickinson v Dodds
- Baccepted
- Cno offer
- Dproperty
- Enegotiation
- Fthird party
- Gtime
29[blank_start]Hyde v Wrench[blank_end]
An offer was made to sell a house for [blank_start]£1000[blank_end]. The offeree made an offer for [blank_start]£950[blank_end]. The [blank_start]offeror[blank_end] declined so the offeree accepted the [blank_start]original offer[blank_end]. Held: There was no [blank_start]contract[blank_end]. Declining the original offer caused the offer to [blank_start]lapse[blank_end].- A£1000
- Bofferor
- Coriginal offer
- Dcontract
- Elapse
- FHyde v Wrench
- G£950
30Pickfords Ltd v [blank_start]Celestica[blank_end]
C [blank_start]executed works[blank_end] for D and claimed payment. There was a dispute about which [blank_start]documents[blank_end] made up the contract.
D had thought he [blank_start]accepted[blank_end] an offer which had already been [blank_start]withdrawn[blank_end]. D was due to pay the [blank_start]sum[blank_end] shown on the first offer calculated by [blank_start]rate[blank_end] as described rather than the [blank_start]fixed sum[blank_end] in the second fax.- ACelestica
- Bfixed sum
- Cwithdrawn
- Ddocuments
- Eexecuted works
- Faccepted
- Gsum
- Hrate
31[blank_start]Effluxion of time[blank_end]
The normal expiration of a [blank_start]lease[blank_end] due to the passage of time.- AEffluxion of time
- Blease
32[blank_start]Ramsgate Victoria Hotel[blank_end] v Montefiore
The [blank_start]offer[blank_end] was no longer open because it [blank_start]lapsed[blank_end] after a [blank_start]reasonable period[blank_end] of time.- ARamsgate Victoria Hotel
- Blapsed
- Creasonable period
- Doffer
33[blank_start]Bradbury v Morgan[blank_end]
Mr Leigh [blank_start]promised[blank_end] to guarantee his son's [blank_start]overdraft[blank_end]. Held: After his death, the offer did not [blank_start]lapse[blank_end] because there was already a [blank_start]contract[blank_end] between Mr Leigh and the bank.- ABradbury v Morgan
- Boverdraft
- Cpromised
- Dlapse
- Econtract
34Reynolds v [blank_start]Atherton[blank_end]
A company made an offer to [blank_start]directors[blank_end] to sell them some [blank_start]shares[blank_end]. New directors and [blank_start]executives[blank_end] accepted the offer. Held: There was not a [blank_start]valid acceptance[blank_end] because it was a personal offer to those who were the [blank_start]directors[blank_end] at the time. Too much time had [blank_start]lapsed[blank_end].- AAtherton
- Bdirectors
- Cexecutives
- Dvalid acceptance
- Edirectors
- Flapsed
- Gshares
Information
- Description
- Quiz on Offer Quiz, created by emhutton on 12/04/2016.
- Author
- emhutton
- Language
- English
- Views
- 1
- Rating
- No ratings yet Rate this quiz